Tag: nuclear war

Campaigners Decry ‘Dangerous Escalation’ as NATO Chief Floats Nuclear Deployment

Nuclear disarmament campaigners on Monday implored NATO and Russia to step back from the brink after the head of the Western military alliance said its members are considering deploying additional atomic weapons to counter Moscow and Beijing.

“This is the dangerous escalation inherent to the deterrence doctrine,” the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) wrote on social media, referring to the notion that the threat of catastrophic nuclear retaliation prevents nations from using atomic weaponry.

The U.S., which spent more on its atomic weapons arsenal than every other nuclear-armed nation combined last year, currently has nukes deployed in five NATO countries—Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Russia, meanwhile, recently deployed nuclear weapons to Belarus, which said earlier this month that it would join Moscow’s nuclear exercises.

ICAN said Monday that “it’s time for both to reverse course.”

“NATO countries hosting U.S. nuclear weapons should admit to their citizens they have weapons of mass destruction on their soil with no public say,” ICAN added. “But neither Belarus nor NATO allies should flaunt being prepared to indiscriminately kill millions of people.”

Keep reading

Korean Atomic Bomb Victims Seek Justice

On June 8th, 2024, in Hiroshima, Japan, The International People’s Tribunal On The 1945 Atomic Bombings met with the goal of holding the United States accountable for the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This People’s Tribunal focuses on the Korean bomb victims, 100,000 of whom were forcibly taken from their homeland by the Japanese to work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the war and were subsequently exposed to the A-bomb blasts.

The recent Tribunal gathering in Hiroshima consisted of legal scholars from Germany, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, discussing legal theories to hold the United States accountable for violating international law for the 1945 atomic bombings, and attempting to establish the illegality of current nuclear threats and nuclear weapon states.

The Tribunal and its Korean plaintiffs are also seeking an official apology from the United States to the Korean victims for the dropping of the two atomic bombs. First and second-generation victims of these bombings were present at the conference and gave powerful testimony as to the multigenerational effects from the bomb blasts.

The Tribunal itself will hold its opening gavel proceedings in New York City in May of 2026 to coincide with the United Nations meeting on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Participants in the June 8th conference were given a tour of the Hiroshima Peace Park and the Hiroshima Peace Museum, which solemnly exhibits the horrific events of August 6th, 1945. Throughout the museum are displays of the burnt and tattered remnants of children’s clothing, charred bicycles, panoramas of the city after detonation, and graphic pictures of atomic bomb victims staggering toward the rivers of Hiroshima in a futile effort to extinguish their pain.

In a single white flash, some 70,000 souls were extinguished at 8:15 in the morning on that August day. Black Rain followed, pouring down on the alive and the barely alive radioactive water. Charred bodies covered the ground and filled the rivers.

Keep reading

Nuclear War: Why we should be thinking about it now

Almost all of us living today have become conditioned to believe that nuclear war will not occur due to the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD.

MAD, put simply, is the guarantee that one country will not use nuclear weapons against another country due to immediate nuclear retaliation and the destruction of both. Not to mention the nuclear winter that would occur and the annihilation of the human population. But what if MAD is obsolete and is no longer protecting us from nuclear war? I believe that to be true, but what does that mean to you and me?

Reconsideration of the reliability of MAD is particularly important at this moment in time. With the current geopolitical circumstances, we’re at a threat level equal to or greater than the Cuban missile crisis. The two most obvious threats emanate from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s intention to invade Taiwan. The situation is exacerbated by the provocation of the United States and its imperialistic and, frankly, arrogant foreign policy.

How have the factors changed that have made MAD obsolete? First, Russia and China have surpassed the Western world’s nuclear capabilities to such a degree that the United States and its NATO allies are no longer considered equals. With hypersonic missile capabilities that our enemies possess and we do not, we’re no longer able to “mutually assure” their destruction. A missile that can travel at speeds faster than 10,000 miles per hour is unstoppable. Our missile defense system is useless against hypersonic nuclear attack, and we’ve allowed our enemies to advance their missile defense system capabilities to well exceed what we possess.

Second, under the Clinton administration, the “fire on warning” protocol was changed. Prior to 1998, the U.S. nuclear response protocol was to fire on warning. The powers that be realized that it was no longer practical to fire on warning. The response took too long, and it put the world at risk over the likelihood that World War III might begin accidentally due to a false warning, which was occurring with some frequency. With the threat of hypersonic missiles, the fire on warning protocol is simply irrelevant. The time from launch to impact of a hypersonic missile launched from a Russian submarine targeting Washington is less than 30 seconds.

Third, the incompetence of our leadership and ineptitude of our military procurement program have created our extreme vulnerability. Generals who decide which weapon systems are funded leave the military and take high-paying positions with federal defense contractors. They essentially accept bribes from companies in exchange for purchasing their inferior products. The F-35 aircraft is a great example. Add to the broken procurement system the woke culture that’s being propagated and destroying our war-fighting capabilities.

With the Ukrainian debacle, Russia has been provoked to the point that Vladimir Putin has recently placed his nuclear forces on high alert. Putin has stated: “If someone decides to intervene in current events from the outside and creates unacceptable strategic threats for Russia, then they must know that our response, our retaliatory strikes, will be lightning fast, quick. We have the tools for this.”

The United States has been sending ever more threatening weaponry to Ukraine such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, a precision rocket weapon. The Ukrainians have not only begun to fire these weapons at Russian targets, but also have been accused of firing artillery at the largest nuclear energy power plant in all of Europe, located in Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine. At what point does Russia act on Putin’s threat and go nuclear?

Russia has now completely allied with China. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Taiwan resulted in China instigating war games in the Taiwan Strait, and the political change within China, where power has been taken from the State Council and given to the Central Military Commission, is a clear move to a war footing.

Keep reading

Retired US Army Officer: Scary How West Pushing World to Brink of Nuclear War

During a meeting with foreign press, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West against thoughtless conflict escalation, stressing that Moscow could repel NATO attempts to threaten its sovereignty both asymmetrically and directly.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting with foreign journalists on June 5 within the framework of the 27th annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

Addressing the Ukraine conflict the Russian president noted that Western weapon deliveries to the Kiev regime, coupled with the approval to hit targets deep inside Russia, is fraught with severe escalation risks.

“How do you respond to this use of weapons and allowing them to attack and basically violate the sovereignty of Russia itself?” Earl Rasmussen, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and international consultant told Sputnik. “If we look at these attacks, they’re not targeting military targets, or they’re targeting strategic targets. They’re targeting civilians, many of them, or strategic targets as well. It’s essentially, basically authorizing and supporting terrorism.”

Keep reading

Are They TRYING to Start a Nuclear War?

The steady path toward World War III continues. U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine in the war with Russia has been one long failure, but that hasn’t stopped them from escalating the war with new weapons and tactics.

Russia has met the escalation with its own escalation every step of the way. At what point do rational leaders in the West (if there are any left) pause, consider that the war is lost in Ukraine, deescalate and seek a treaty to end the war?

There’s no sign of that yet. In fact, all of the signs point to further escalation, which is a sure path to nuclear war. What good has escalation accomplished?

The West supplied Ukraine with HIMARS precision-guided artillery, but that largely failed because the Russians quickly learned how to jam the GPS guidance systems, so the missiles went off course.

That doesn’t mean the Russians shoot down or jam every HIMARS rocket Ukraine launches. Some will always get through. But overall, their effectiveness has been limited compared with expectations.

The U.S. and NATO also supplied Ukraine with Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles that have been left burning on the battlefield. They also require intensive maintenance Ukraine can’t necessarily provide, and are often unsuited for the battlefield conditions in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian soldiers have actually expressed a preference for Russian-made equipment over NATO’s.

Keep reading

Presidents Who Gamble With Nuclear Armageddon

The overriding job of any U.S. president is to keep the nation safe. In the nuclear age, that mainly means avoiding nuclear Armageddon. Joe Biden’s reckless and incompetent foreign policy is pushing us closer to annihilation. He joins a long and undistinguished list of presidents who have gambled with Armageddon, including his immediate predecessor and rival, Donald Trump.

Talk of nuclear war is currently everywhere. Leaders of NATO countries call for Russia’s defeat and even dismemberment, while telling us not to worry about Russia’s 6,000 nuclear warheads. Ukraine uses NATO-supplied missiles to knock out parts of Russia’s nuclear-attack early-warning system inside Russia. Russia, in the meantime, engages in nuclear drills near its border with Ukraine. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg give the green light to Ukraine to use NATO weapons to hit Russian territory as an increasingly desperate and extremist Ukrainian regime sees fit.

These leaders neglect at our greatest peril the most basic lesson of the nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis, as told by President John F. Kennedy, one of the few American presidents in the nuclear age to take our survival seriously. In the aftermath of the crisis, Kennedy told us, and his successors:

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of a collective death-wish for the world.

Yet this is exactly what Biden is doing today, carrying out a bankrupt and reckless policy.

Keep reading

Ukraine Targets Radars That Are Part Of Russia’s Nuclear Warning System

A Ukrainian intelligence source told Reuters that a Ukrainian drone targeted a radar deep inside Russian territory that’s part of Russia’s early-warning system to detect nuclear missiles. The incident marks the second time within a week that Ukrainian officials reported attacks on a Russian nuclear warning system, known as “Voronezh M” radars.

The source said that the strike targeted a radar near the city of Orsk in Russia’s Orenburg Oblast, which is over 900 miles away from Ukrainian territory. The source didn’t say if there was any damage, and Russian media reported a drone was downed in the Orenburg region and that no civilian infrastructure was hit.

On May 22, a Ukrainian drone targeted a Voronezh M radar in Russia’s Krasnodar Oblast at a radar station about 300 miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory.

The US-state-funded RFE/RL reported there was damage to the radar site, citing satellite images, although Reuters said it could not verify the imagery.

While the Russian radars can track missiles fired by Ukraine, the primary function of the early-warning system is to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles to determine if Russia is coming under a nuclear attack.

Ukraine’s targeting of the systems could lead to a major response from Russia or potentially a miscalculation as the attacks come at a time of unprecedented nuclear tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The Telegraph reported that the attack on the radar in Krasnodar “sparked alarm” in the west. The report quoted Thord Are Iversen, a Norwegian military analyst, who said it was “not a particularly good idea…, especially in times of tension” and that it was “in everyone’s best interest that Russia’s ballistic missile warning system works well.”

Keep reading

Ukraine Conflict: Path to Nuclear World War

President Biden has decided to permit Ukraine to use US weapons to strike military targets inside Russia, where missiles are being launched from. This move is supported by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Until now, the US had disagreed despite Stoltenberg’s urgings, and several NATO members continue to voice their objections.

The decision is crucial for Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. However, it marks an escalation, bringing the US closer to conflict with Russia, the world’s largest possessor of nuclear warheads. A video released by the Russian government warns that by enabling Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, the West has revealed its “true motive.” The Moscow claims that these weapons are not for defense but are intended to strike civilian infrastructure inside Russia.

Putin told reporters in Tashkent that constant escalation could lead to dire consequences in Europe and the United States. He warned Western leaders that their decision was dangerous and could trigger a global conflict. Specifically, he said that sending French troops to Ukraine would be a step too far. Additionally, he ominously stated that some European countries have small landmasses but dense populations. Regardless of where one stands on the Ukraine war or whether the US and NATO should be involved, the Kremlin is correct in saying that each successive escalation brings the world closer to a global conflict.

Keep reading

US Threats to Greenlight Ukrainian Attacks on Russia Could Spill Out Into Nuclear War

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly asked President Biden to formally greenlight Ukrainian strikes against targets deep inside Russia using US-provided long-range weaponry amid growing pressure from hawks in Washington. Sputnik asked seasoned international affairs observer Scott Ritter about the development’s dangerous endgame.

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul added fuel to the fire of escalatory rhetoric swirling around Washington on Wednesday regarding restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American long-range strike weapons, trotting out a map during Secretary Blinken’s testimony showing areas of Russia hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian frontlines that weapons like ATACMS and HIMARS could hit.

“Will you change this policy so that Ukraine can fight without one hand tied behind its back?” McCaul asked.

“When it comes to enabling or endorsing attacks outside of Ukraine, that’s not something we’ve done, but Ukraine will have to make and will make its own decisions and I want to make sure that it gets the equipment that it needs,” Blinken said, avoiding a direct answer.

Privately, however, sources told the New York Times that the secretary of state favors lifting the restrictions, and that he has lobbied President Biden to do so after what the newspaper characterized as a “sobering” trip to Kiev last week, where he was briefed on Ukraine’s battlefield setbacks.

Keep reading

Closer to Nuclear War

I can’t help but wonder what proponents of America’s participation in the old Cold War dinosaur known as NATO are thinking about NATO officials who are contemplating sending NATO military personnel into Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops in their war against Russia. Those who relish the idea of nuclear war between the United States and Russia undoubtedly must be ecstatic over the possibility of such a move.

It has been clear for some time that Ukraine is losing its war with Russia. Ukraine has lost countless young soldiers and their front-line troops are now largely composed of middle-aged men. Its production has plummeted. Its supply of weapons is low, which is why it continues to desperately seek replacement weapons from the United States. Ukrainian forces continue to retreat. And there is the increasing possibility that Russian forces will achieve a breakthrough in Ukrainian defense lines.

Obviously feeling desperate over the battlefield situation, European officials within NATO are contemplating sending military personnel into Ukraine to help train Ukrainian soldiers.

But wouldn’t that put NATO and Russia into direct military conflict? After all, what happens if a Russian missile kills a bunch of NATO soldiers inside Ukraine?

According to the New York Times, “So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. ‘We’ll get there eventually, over time,’ he said.”

Keep reading